Beydler: Is your health as important to you as your automobile?
Jon Beydler
Jon Beydler is a 32-year Valley resident and the former mayor of Fountain Hills who now lives in Chandler.
Welcome to the discussion.
-
Current users sign in here.
29 comments:
© Copyright 2013, East Valley Tribune, Tempe, AZ. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy]
A Division of 10/13 Communications
Arizona Willie posted at 8:15 am on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
BULLETIN!! BULLETIN!!
The Republican Party is about to announce it's new plan for Universal Health Care so that everyone will be able to get medical care regardless of their income.
Anyone who doesn't have Medical Insurance will be given a passport and a one way ticket to the country of their choice that has Universal Health Care.
Arizona Willie posted at 8:13 am on Thu, Apr 5, 2012.
Republicans always claim private enterprise does things better than government.
So, their objection to having people be required to buy medical insurance from private for profit insurance companies seems very strange. Especially since one of their own, Boehner, negotiated the Affordable Health Care Act with Obama.
What they really object to are the provisions that cut into insurance company profits.
Such as the upcoming rebate required of companies that don't spend at least 80% of premiums on benefits to the policy holders ( Medicare pays out 92% of premiums in benefits -- the average insurance company pays out around 70% ), and the provisions that they can't cancel you when you get sick and file claims or that they can't refuse to insure you because of pre-existing conditions.
Those provisions are why they actually object to the Health Care Act.
The pandering Supreme Court will overturn the Health Care Act but as soon as a Republican is in the White House it will come back again, only all the provisions the insurance industry doesn't like will be stripped out.
But you will still be required to purchase medical insurance from for profit medical insurance companies -- but the new act will probably not have a financial penalty for not being insured -- but doctors and hospitals will be barred from providing medical care to anyone who doesn't have insurance in order to " protect the taxpayers ".
Thus it will be a case of " buy or die ".
Louiejr posted at 3:00 pm on Tue, Apr 3, 2012.
Alfred E Newman ( ret ) ... one thing is for sure ... eventually we will have a g men run healthcare system for everyone besides 65+ citizens . It's just a question of how to pay for it . Broad based taxes will eventually be enacted because our elected officials inside the Beltway can't and won't cut spending . This Orwellian society started with FDR folowing Keynes advice . Gee ... I believe FDR was a member of the Democratic Party .
Frankly I don't see how any of the Supreme 9 could agree with forcing a citizen to purchase any thing . The responsibility for " Affordable Care " goes to the committee that drafted it not the President . This issue is right up there with gun control and we know how " The Nine " ruled on that previously .
VofReason posted at 12:58 pm on Tue, Apr 3, 2012.
Yup. As I expected, non of the liberal nuts that acted agast at a conservative commentator taking swipes at Obamacare have given Beydler the same. Nope, when you belive in the same nuttiness as the nut writer it is all good. Predictable. Beydler here should stay away from the heavy topics like Insurance Policy and stick to the areas where he has more expertise. Like what color Hawaiian shirt gives the most credibility to a columnist. Giggle
mnjcpa posted at 6:34 pm on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
Watch out everyone - Arizona Willie has insider knowledge to the supreme court!
Everyone could benefit from reading Rich's overview of the problem how insurance is dealt with an perceived at this post: 3/31 at 3:42pm . He nails the problem.
Rich posted at 6:32 pm on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
"Society says no in all these situations. So SOMEONE is going to pay the bills."
Exactly, and because we say "no" we all should. If we say "yes" which we could, then someone dies. We do this all the time. Go to war, do it to someone else. In this example, we pay taxes so we have the police to stop the kids in the first place, so the responsibility lies with people we hire. Perhaps, when they don't do their jobs, we should dock their pay, or pension to save someone's life. After all, it was put in peril because they weren't good enough at what we paid for.
Having fun with your own head here Willie? You can come up with a thousand anecdotal, fictional examples, Most are nonsense. Until the choice belongs to the patient, until the responsibility is there, medical care will continue to decline, and it won't make a bit of difference if you double the cost. Need an operation, ask the insurance company? The problem with the system now is you're letting corporations play doctor on your dime. And you want to expand that? If you go back to the patient is the customer, and an insurance can't pay out without the patient okaying it, you'll get medical care back, if you continue to treat patients like silent cash cows, you won't, and people will die.
Arizona Willie posted at 4:57 pm on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
Louiejr ... I don't think you need to worry. It will be another Republican Court decision just like the Bush Florida decision.
Until the Republicans regain the Presidency then you will see the same health care act under a new name and they will proclaim that it is their idea.
Because, the Affordable Health Care Act requires people to buy insurance FROM PRIVATE FOR PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANIES which has long been the Republican dream.
True Obamacare would require people to sign up with Medicare ( that should be it would ALLOW ) not private FOR PROFIT companies.
Of course they will strip out the provisions that prevent companies from cancelling people who had paid their premiums for years when they get sick and will allow insurance companies to refuse to insure people with pre-existing conditions ALL OF WHICH IS BARRED under the so called Obamacare.
But rest easy ... you won't have to be responsible for your own medical bills as long as the Republicans dominate the Supreme Court and there is a Democrat in the White House. When he is gone --- well that is going to be a whole different story then.
Louiejr posted at 4:33 pm on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
I see this debate has really heated up in two days . If The Affordable Healtcare Act goes forward I can't wait to see the first person cuffed and led off by the g men for not having health insurance in 2014 . That will be a sad day for this country and our founding fathers will groan in their graves .
Slabside posted at 3:21 pm on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
DING DING DING! And we have a another winner! Today's second "Liberal Racist Jacka_s_s Award" goes to Arizona Willie for interjecting racism when he has no valid argument.
Arizona Willie posted at 3:04 pm on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
Rich, let's picture something. Two kids are drag racing down the street and one hits a pedestrian crossing the street. The EMT'S pick him up and take him to the hospital but he is in a coma and they can't find evidence of insurance -- no wallet -- no one knows if he had one or not.
Should the hospital let him die?
Similar situation -- but they know he is a homeless man with no insurance -- should they let him die?
Similar situation -- but YOU are the pedestrian ... should they let you die?
Society says no in all these situations. So SOMEONE is going to pay the bills.
Why are you so against personal responsibility and everyone having insurance to cover their bills? If you live you WILL encounter medical expenses at some point in your life. Depending on your luck it could be this afternoon driving home or 40 years from now.
I fail to understand how right wingers -- who always always always preach personal responsibility --- are against people being responsible for their own medical bills by having insurance.
I believe the right isn't ACTUALLY against people being required to be responsible for their own medical bills --- they are against the EBONY PRESIDENT and anything he does they will oppose. Once he is out of office, especially if a Republican takes his place -- suddenly they will drop all opposition to the so called " Obamacare " and will claim it is THEIR idea and the greatest idea since wearing clothes.
Rich posted at 1:06 pm on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
"As long as you choose to live ( equates to choosing to drive in their twisted minds ) then you need to buy medical insurance to protect other people from having to pay your medical bills..."
Why? you want to be the one protected, then you be the one to pay. Your attitude has cost us some of the best medical care in the world and already put everyone's health, and life in jeopardy, why keep it up? Health insurance has failed, sunk medical care, and put us in danger, all to protect Willie from his own bills? Insurance has tanked what once was one of the best systems of medical care anywhere, inflated the cost until it is unaffordable, and now seeks to extort even more money. The country that led the world in medical advances is now on the border of the third world in medicine, because of insurance. If you feel it's necessary for you, fine, pay your bills, protect yourself, but don't expect the rest of the world to do it for you.
Arizona Willie posted at 12:32 pm on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
It's ridiculous how people try to equate buying health insurance to buying car insurance, especially when they say " I don't have to drive so if I don't want to drive I don't have to by car insurance so I shouldn't have to buy health insurance. "
Well to make that an accurate comparision it is only true if you don't want to live.
As long as you choose to live ( equates to choosing to drive in their twisted minds ) then you need to buy medical insurance to protect other people from having to pay your medical bills when you get in a car wreck or the building you work in blows up or somebody robbing a 7-11 shoots you an innocent bystander. Not to mention the capricious gods who may decide to inflict cancer or some other nasty on your body.
If you don't want to carry medical insurance --- commit suicide.
That's what I'm tempted to say but it would be politically incorrect so I won't say that.
It's strange the right wingers are always complaining about having to pay taxes for people who don't pay and various other situations where they have to pay for other people ---- but they don't want people to buy medical insurance from FOR PROFIT companies so that other people don't have to pay their medical bills.
Word is that Republicans had wanted the same mandates before Obama came through for Boehner with boehnercare and they got the law requiring people to buy insurance from FOR PROFIT companies instead of joining Medicare.
I wonder why they were for it before they were against it. Hmmmm?
sockratties posted at 11:01 am on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
Jon – your comparison of auto and healthcare insurance is a weak analogy when you relate to the way medicare is implemented. Auto insurance covers liability for damage you may cause if you operate a vehicle. It is usually attached to a particular vehicle and protects others unless you carry additional insurance for personal loss or injury. Medical insurance is coverage to protect yourself, not others, from the cost of illness or injury. They are not the same. Auto insurance is mandated on a state-by-state level, medicare is not... another difference.
Perhaps we should think about health insurance related to protecting others from costs we may incur but are unable to pay. Healthcare needs are as unpredictable as auto accidents. If we knew when we were going to have a wreck or run over a pedestrian we wouldn't have to buy insurance until just before it happened. Same with illness. Premiums are the insurance company's way of betting on the odds, which set the rate with a profit built in. Medical insurance could do the same thing if the government wasn't involved.
If you choose to drive, most states mandate auto insurance or financial proof of adequate resources so that no one gets stuck with costs you should be paying. You could actually place money in a dedicated fund for such occurrences. Few people have resources to show such proof so we buy insurance which is in fact a bond meeting the requirements.
States could also require people who decide to live to have a policy or dedicated funds that would cover the cost of care should they become ill. This would make sure that if they needed services provided by medical providers their liability for the cost of those services would be paid. This could be in the form of a medical savings account, purchased policy or combination thereof.
There has to be a way to enforce compliance because it is not in the nature of a reasonable citizenry to let people die in the streets. Auto insurance policies include an additional premium for “uninsured motorist” coverage which is a way for insurance companies to recoup damages for the policy holder that should have been paid by an uninsured driver. Drivers privileges are denied for uninsured drivers. Medical insurance also needs safeguards against people who have nothing to lose working the system.
These issues should be on a state level with states accepting all viable insurance companies to compete in the market. The only federal laws that need be mandated is that states must make such programs available and the programs must be interactive from state to state so people don't lose coverage when crossing state lines.
In_God_We_Trust posted at 1:24 pm on Sun, Apr 1, 2012.
My health is worth much more than my car's health. That is why I have medical insurance and have regular checkups. Last time I checked health insurance wasn't a right in the constitution. Neither is housing, nutrition or several others the progressive socialists want to cram down out throats.
In_God_We_Trust posted at 1:18 pm on Sun, Apr 1, 2012.
The fact is that no where in any state or federal law are you required to drive a car, therefor you are not required to buy auto insurance unless you wish to drive. No different than being required to pass a test and carry a drivers license if you wish to drive.
I would really love to see you show us many, many precedents and examples of how the federal, not to mention state government, has historically and successfully made the case for mandating that citizens purchase minimum levels of insurance to protect themselves and society.
Cerulean posted at 6:53 am on Sun, Apr 1, 2012.
Woops, in my earlier comment I should have said, *prior to 1980 healthcare costs in the US were in pack with the rest of the developed nations as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. (GDP is the monetary value of all the finished goods and services.) However, *during the 1980’s the US began to spend a much larger portion of our capital on healthcare. Since the 1980’s the portion we spend on healthcare has more than tripled that of other developed nations. When healthcare cost became unaffordable more people could not pay, more people were uninsured . . . etcetera.
The Affordable Healthcare Act may not be the ‘end all be all’ solution to this problem. It is, however, a start. I applaud the attempt.
harryperezz posted at 12:47 am on Sun, Apr 1, 2012.
People should never forget that real health depends how well you take care of yourself and not what health insurance you carry but I agree health insurance is important for every one. Search "Penny Health" or online for dollar a day insurance plans.
veryconcerned posted at 9:10 pm on Sat, Mar 31, 2012.
herein is where the problem is. people like jon feel the need for a government that forces anything and everything down our throats.
It is ridiculous for him to compare auto insurance to health insurance. Driving an auto is a privilege, if you do not want to have insurance, do not drive.
There are lots of options to get around today besides having your own vehicle. I'm so against big government and especially the size it is today. There is no way we can sustain the direction we are headed. Despite what we are being told by the media, we will not survive another term under the current administration.
We are the most benevolent country in the world, but we have a president that apologizes to the bad countries that we help so much and snubs our allies. He makes a mockery of our military, our religions, and our country which is still the greatest country.
I don't like to be negative toward jon, but if he would move from arizona to maybe a state like california he would raise the IQ in both states.
Cerulean posted at 8:28 pm on Sat, Mar 31, 2012.
This I find interesting; prior to the 1980’s the cost of healthcare as a percentage of GDP began to rise, outpacing spending of the rest of the civilized world dramatically.
I briefed through some explanations from other sources as to why this was the case. And here is the answer I like best:
“1980. The Reagan revolution. Let free enterprise reign, and it did. Non-profit health insurance providers became for-profit health insurance providers. The growing gap from the everyone else is simply the profit margin of these companies.
It makes sense that the US was on the top end in terms of expenditures – after all, we were (not necessarily are now) the technology and research leader. We led the war on cancer. We led in vaccination research. We led in the pioneering of many new surgical techniques.
It is no surprise that the Reagan revolution was a way for profiteers wearing the flag of “free enterprise” to rob the cookie jar. They did – we the stupid consumers pay, and pay, and pay. Because it’s not about healthcare or research or technology – it’s about gross profit.
And nothing is more American than that.
— Lynne “
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/us-health-spending-breaks-from-the-pack/#comment-40607
So – I know not if insurance is the best solution, but I know that the middle class cannot afford everyone’s health bill with rates as high as 30% of earnings.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/06/fact-check-no1-health-care-costs-versus-wages/
Rich posted at 3:42 pm on Sat, Mar 31, 2012.
"...yet they don't want people to have to take personal responsibility for their own health care and buy insurance to cover themselves."
Insurance isn't personal responsibility, it is the exact antithesis, it's paying someone else to take it. It has already destroyed medical care, specifically because it removes personal responsibility from the equation. The patient lacks responsibility, therefore the doctor lacks the responsibility to contain costs, therefore it is unaffordable. So long as you base it on insurance, cost will continue the escalate, because it lacks checks, limits, quality will decline because it lacks responsibility. You started with the draft. In the nineteenth century you could pay someone to take your place. Health insurance is rather the same thing.
Arizona Willie posted at 2:52 pm on Sat, Mar 31, 2012.
The Federal Government, at one time, required all males to register for the Selective Service ( called the draft ).
If they can require all males to sign up for the draft why can't they require people to insure their health so when they get sick or injured the taxpayers don't have to pay for their care via the emergency room?
Strangely, the people who yell the most about paying taxes are also the people who complain about making people buy health insurance which would keep them from paying more taxes to pay for uninsured people's medical care in the emergency room.
The Health Care act would eliminate hospitals and doctors working on people for " free " which other people with medical insurance wind up paying for in higher insurance rates ( those smart enough to buy medical insurance ).
Some genius in one of the posts aks " if you aren't sick why would you buy medical insurance? "
The insurance companies won't take you once you got sick.
You can't call an auto insurance company immediately after you've had a wreck and take out insurance to pay for the wreck you just had.
So you can't get insurance for the broken leg you just got skiing after your broke your leg.
Right wingers are always preaching about personal responsibility -- yet they don't want people to have to take personal responsibility for their own health care and buy insurance to cover themselves.
Insanity thy name is right wingers.
I have truly come to believe that being a neocon is a form of mental illness.
Dale Whiting posted at 2:07 pm on Sat, Mar 31, 2012.
Jon,
Where while I posted my above comment two others beat me to the punch, I thought I might lend some more indepth understanding of the problem than they gave.
First, remember back to the 55 mph speed limit? Congress mandated that 55 be the maximum speed on interstates but also mandated that for all other roads. But they did not do it by fining those who sped. Rather, they withheld Federal Highway funds from any state who did not lower the speed limits. Here in AZ, we got selective enforement, the unstated rule that one had be be going more than 10 mph over before they'd ve stopped. Clearly that was constitutional. Eventually we got 65 mph on the open interstates. I recall crossing Wyoming back in the days when it had no speed limits at all.
So the Feds can enforce their programs by withholding funds from related programs. Can you imagine what is in store in 2012 when the 2010 healthcare law is declared unconstitutional? We'll either get the public option, my favorite options, or we'll see the Feds start withholding funding on medical related programs if the States do not pass mandates. That's what happened in Massacusetts. MA has their own state mandated laws.
Sure there is a difference between regulating existing interstate commerce and forcing one to participate in interstate commerce. I can choose not to insure and drive a vehicle by choosing not to drive. The argument for mandating healthcare insurance has been mischaracterized as forcing us to buy and eat broccoli. That is wrong. I can easily avoid eating broccoli my entire life time. But can I avoid being taken by ambulance to an emergency room after someone hits me while I cross with the light in a pedestrial cross walk? And if they are not insured, who pays for my ER treatment? Now it looks like the Neo-cons will be paying.
asuaguila posted at 2:06 pm on Sat, Mar 31, 2012.
It's not like car insurance because nearly everyone in the US seeks healthcare. And tax payers pay for all those people who do not have insurance and use the ER at hospitals for their only medical care. This law will reduce my cost toward buying other people medical care.
And by the way we all pay for people who drive because our taxes pay for roads and their upkeep. I ride my bike to work, so I should not have to pay for other people to drive.
Louiejr posted at 1:43 pm on Sat, Mar 31, 2012.
Comparing auto insurance to health insurance is like comparing apples to oranges .
If you don't own an automobile you don't need auto insurance . Walk or use public transportation . If you are healthy why would you purchase health insurance .
Jon, New Hampshire does not have a mandatory auto insurance law . They have no sales tax or income tax either .
The liberal view is we should all pay for the health care of those who use the system the most . Of course we're paying now because 25% of the cost for hospitals is unfunded and passed to those who have insurance or pay for their healthcare anyways .
Any citizen who has been paying attention knows that when the g men get involved the price goes up . The g men simply aren't as efficient as private industry because they don't have to be .
The g men have been part of our healthcare since 1966 and the Johnson administration . Now that the liberals are in the majority inside the Beltway they want to expand their control over everyone's healthcare not just those over age 65 .
The mere fact that The Affordable Care Act is being decided by the top court in this country tells you something is wrong with it .
If you want socialized medicine just move to Canada ! Their GST and PST on goods will pay for your care ... if you need it !
joevi posted at 1:38 pm on Sat, Mar 31, 2012.
I think your 'drift' went from apples to oranges. There's a difference between the State enforcing legal liability (protecting other citizens from your actions) via auto/liability insurance and FORCING it's citizens to protect their own health (and the costs of their health care).
Next time you may want to esnure your point is fully baked.
Dale Whiting posted at 1:33 pm on Sat, Mar 31, 2012.
The problem with the healthcare insurance industry was that it was allowed to divide up the states in a way such that no more than two were competing in the same region. And lack of competition is not the American Way! Or at least it didn't use to be until more recently. Now it is the center piece of the American Way! And thanks to "Citizens United" its going to stay that way.
Rich posted at 12:10 pm on Sat, Mar 31, 2012.
"There are many, many precedents and examples of how the federal, not to mention state government, has historically and successfully made the case for mandating that citizens purchase minimum levels of insurance to protect themselves and society."
Can't find any Jon, I'm sure you'll enlighten me? Mandatory purchase of anything is simply extortion, always has been. Our politicos get away with it, and the insurance companies fund their campaigns to be sure they continue to get away with it. Mandatory auto insurance helps no one but ambulance chasers, you've seen their ads on T.V. no doubt. Park your car, have someone back into it. The insurance company pays you less than the repair costs, and then raises your rate to cover what they do pay. And you have to pay them by law. Group health insurance has already sunk medicine in this country to little better than third world standards. Continuing that madness, expanding it and sitting an expensive governmental bureaucracy on top of it is just going to sink it faster, at increased cost.
I'm not a tea party member, I think they are almost as nutty as you are. However, I do recognize that, as a percentage of the GDP, government is far too large to be effective, and that extortion, no matter what cloak it hides itself in, is destructive.
Accuracy posted at 12:10 pm on Sat, Mar 31, 2012.
President Obama has appointed radical pro-abortion government officials and the “ObamaCare” is a direct assault on the lives of unborn babies, forcing taxpayers to pay for the abortion pill and abortions.
We now wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh the constitutionality of the individual mandate and severability – and if the Democrats remove the severability clause in the “ObamaCare”, then the high court should throw the entire law out.
It will be months before we know the Supreme Court's decision.
chatmandu002 posted at 10:51 am on Sat, Mar 31, 2012.
Jon,
I guess the constitution doesn't mean squat to you. And apparently you can make up all kinds of things the federal government can require it's citizens to purchase. Also I'm sure you want the federal government to take over your personal responsibilities so you would be relieved of having any. Let the government control and be responsible for your life from cradle to grave while someone else pays for it.
As a Tea Party Patriot I am against a big government. I want fiscal responsibility, a constitutionally limited government and a free market economic system. You can keep your progressive socialist government.
Yes I am one of "the nageling nabobs of negativism, or as they would like be referred to — the tea party".